On Fri, 2004-01-23 at 10:06, Gabriel Gunderson wrote: > Tough crowd. > > > Your statements are contradictory, however. DRM only matters when the > > content is being distributed and that requires that the recipient's > > rights to the content are being managed by the distributor. It's > > inherent in the system. Help, help! I'm being repressed! > > Do you think that you will be the recipient in every case?
I'm not assuming that. I don't have any reasons to use DRM on my own content. If it's for my own use then it's completely pointless. And since I feel DRM is so wrong, I certainly wouldn't want to inflict that penalty on anyone else. Copyright infringement is a price of fame. I accept that. But I also believe that if you give people a fair alternative, most of them will do the right thing. Perhaps I'm a bit altruistic and naive. > > DRM is wrong (not just a bad idea, but wrong) because it makes > > copyrights last forever which is a complete bastardization of the > > original idea. > > Maybe DRM isn't wrong, maybe its "objectives are contradictory." > > I'm just saying: Yea, I think it will be forced on us. Yes, I do believe > it will be in our future. > > I'm sure it will be abused. I'm saying that it's existence *is* an abuse of copyrights. I don't believe any perceived benefits of DRM are worth the huge costs associated. Corey ____________________ BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ ___________________________________________________________________ List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
